Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





2008 Toyota Highlander

1787981838497

Comments

  • qs933qs933 Posts: 302
    Things you can't get on the Sport that you get on the Limited:

    - Satin woodgrain trim
    - Smart Entry system
    - Door scuff plate
    - Puddle lamps on the outside mirrors
    - Power passenger seat
    - 10-way power adjustable driver's seat (vs 8-way on Sport)
    - Auto-dimming rear view mirror

    Things you can't get on the Limited that you can get with the Sport:

    - Silver interior trim
    - Black interior color (unless you're in Hawaii and some other areas, where it is available on the Limited)
    - Sport-tuned suspension
    - Smoked-chrome grill
    - Smoked tinted headlamps and taillights
    - 3rd Row Seat Delete option

    There are some other differences (badging, of course) and slightly different wheels (dark silver accent on the Sport), but I think that's pretty much it.

    Personally, since I would be getting leather anyway, I think the price difference between a fully optioned Sport and a Limited makes the Limited worth it (for the Smart key alone, IMHO).
  • canuck17canuck17 Posts: 28
    I have the black interior with black exterior on my HL Ltd. in Canada.This looks very sharp with the woodgrain trim. Also I believe you can only get the back power liftgate with the HL Ltd. which is a great feature as the back liftgate is quite heavy. The Ltd. in Canada is the only one with an immobiliser and security system. I do not know if this is the same in the US.

    ET.
  • nimrod99nimrod99 Posts: 343
    Ok, for the record.
    I love my Highlander. I had a 2003 and recently traded up to a 2008.

    Yes the navigation is a little restrictive and maybe I overstated my opinions / feelings. The main point I wanted to make was I expected more from Toyota (yeah, my bad for not doing more research on the Nav). Toyota has responded to my questions very nicely. They said that they take customers input seriously.

    I am trying to give Toyota some constructive feed back (letting them know how good the Honda CR-V nav is for a much cheaper vehicle. Besides not being locked out, there are more features in the Honda Nav.)

    Maybe the next release of the Nav will have a passenger option (using the seat sensors). Or at least, add in more voice commands to allow access to other feature. I would be happy if there were more voice commands (Honda CR-V has 600, the Highlander has 130).
    If consumers don't voice their feelings, the manufacturers will never strive to get better.
  • soloencasoloenca Posts: 1
    I need to add daytime running lights to my Highlander 2008. The different dealers contacted have not been helpful. What parts do I need?
  • ronnronn Posts: 398
    Why do you need to add? The Highlander 08 has running lights.
  • vtgk7vtgk7 Posts: 17
    You are correct Ronn....The 08 comes with daytime running lights and you can turn them off if needed witrh the light control on the steering column.
  • lucky_777lucky_777 Posts: 205
    base doesn't come with daytime running lights. You might need new light switch assembly that supports DRL and a relay. Go to another dealer for help.
  • Just returned from my longest trip yet in our 2008 Highlander Limited.......a 520 mile roundtrip from Orange County to Fresno (S. Calif.). All driving was done late at night, with no traffic and perfect weather...no wind, and cool enough to not need a/c. That trip is almost all freeway, but does involve going over 4,100' Tejon Pass, known as the Grapevine. The car ran flawlessly and on the return leg I got 25.8 mpg driving at a steady 75 mph with cruise most of the time. That to me is very impressive!! I have over 5,000 miles on the car now, and it feels like it is starting to get nicely broken in.
    For a trip like this the car was very comfortable and it handles so well and is also very quiet. I used the navigation system a lot, and loved being able to see service stations and restaurants by the exits all the way up, and it was nice being warned of coming direction changes 2 miles in advance. We also used the Bluetooth phone many times.........that smooth V-6 is also very responsive when you need to step on it for passing situations.
    All in all, I am more impressed than ever with this car, and still have zero items to either complain about or needing fixing. My overall mileage now for this car, since I bought it, is right at 20 mpg, which includes a mix of some city plus freeway. Hope the rest of you are enjoying yours this much!!
  • ronnronn Posts: 398
    Can someone help me. I have 08 Highlander Naviagtion, and I punched something wrong the other day and I can't get my regular screen up. The current screen shows a compass and list each street I'm on with addresses. I am trying to get back to the regular Map screen that shows resturants, gas, etc.
    Can someone get me back there? Thanks a bunch!

    Ronn
  • ronnronn Posts: 398
    Thardgrave....I am delighted to know that you had a great trip with such good mpg!!
    Yes, I love my Highlander. Can't wait to take my trip the first part of July!
    I find it amazing myself that the mpg is so great on this SUV!
    Yes, I do enjoy it so much. It is fun to drive, and is good looking...

    Have a great day

    Ronn
  • bigdadi118bigdadi118 Posts: 1,207
    I think Daytime Running Light is option in base model
  • nimrod99nimrod99 Posts: 343
    Lower left corner, theres an icon that opens up the screen view options.
    or voice in "Single Map"
    http://www.toyotaiguide.com/content/08Highlander/iGuide.htm

    or look in your users manual
  • nimrod99nimrod99 Posts: 343
    2WD or 4WD?
  • nimrod99nimrod99 Posts: 343
    Don't waste your time and effort trying to add DRL
    You can just turn your lights on.

    In actual fact DRL is a big scam
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daytime_running_lamp

    1) DRL's actual increase accidents (pedestrians and motorcyclists)
    2) DRL's increase the CO2 output by consuming an extra 0.25 mpg (multply that by millions of vehicles)
    3) DRL's were intended for northern latitudes (Canada, Scandinavia) where daylight is weak. Here in the US the lighting is fine.
  • nimrod99nimrod99 Posts: 343
    History
    In some countries, DRLs have been mandatory or in use since the 1970s, and some have noticed a decrease in only one or maybe two types of motor vehicle crashes. However, under reanalysis, the benefits of DRLs in these countries has been called into serious question. The countries that currently use and have used DRLs for many years are very different from the United States in culture, in government, and, most importantly, in latitude and climate.

    Scandinavian countries were the first to impose DRL regulations on manufacturers and on consumers. But Scandinavia, which is located in the far northern latitudes (i.e. North Pole,) has much less ambient lighting than the United States, especially in the winter. Naturally, then, DRLs would have a different impact on motorists and on highway safety. Yet it is to 20 year old studies from these countries that our government and our automobile manufacturers point to in support of DRL regulations.

    Sweden enacted mandatory DRL laws in 1977. Norway followed in 1986, Iceland in 1988, Denmark in 1990. Canada has required DRLs on new cars since 1989. Anyone with even a basic knowledge of geography, however, will see the plain and apparent differences between these nations and our own - their distance from the equator!

    Initially, NHSTA said safety experiences in northern countries had no direct application to the United States. But, in a strange reversal of tradition, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) began embracing DRL regulatory proposals at the request of petitions from General Motors. One need only follow the money trail to see why this has happened. The automobile industry has seen the massive economic potential of marketing their products to your fears, and has convinced the federal government to throw reliable data -- and common sense -- out the window.

    Because there is no conclusive evidence that DRLs present any real safety advantages, and because the United States does have more ambient lighting than countries where DRLs have been embraced, DRLs are NOT currently required in America. But if some people -- including the amazing special interest of the automobile industry -- have their way, we'll all soon be paying for their unique but unfounded marketing concept.

    Strangely, the road toward DRL acceptance by government regulators has been a twisted one. In 1987, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety proposed that NHTSA permit DRLs. NHTSA rejected the idea, but the Insurance Institute proposed the concept again a year later. Still, it was rejected, and NHTSA said that DRLs do not improve highway safety and may, in fact, INCREASE HIGHWAY HAZARDS. Quite simply, if most vehicles have DRLs, it's harder to spot those who do not. NHTSA also said glare from the DRLs of oncoming vehicles could bother some drivers.

    But in 1990, General Motors pushed NHTSA again, asking for a national standard permitting an optional DRL system. NHTSA complied two years later, and therein lies the problem. NHTSA regulations take precedence over any and all state laws, so now DRLs are legal in all states, when two-thirds of the states had previously banned DRLs altogether. Even worse, NHTSA permitted DRLs to be implemented on high beam headlamps at up to 7000 candela. This is well above the threshold for discomfort glare. Why? So that GM could make DRLs on the cheap.

    GM began installing DRLs immediately on some models in 1993. By 1997, all GM vehicles had installed. GM has kindly offered to SELL you a kit to convert your current vehicle to DRLs. How thoughtful -- and how very profitable.

    Finally, in 1998, after receiving several hundred complaints about the excessive glare and the overall effectiveness of DRLs, NHTSA proposed reductions in DRL intensities. The proposed reductions were overly generous to the auto manufacturers by permitting high beam DRLs to be used for another three years. In the end, after 4 years low beam DRLs would be allowed if they were no stronger than 1500cd above the horizontal. Due to vehicles operating at a higher voltage in the real world than in the lab, this figure would approach 2000cd when the car hit the road. In addition, there was no limit placed on the intensity below the horizontal. With such extreme vehicle height differences that we have today, from the Corvette to the 3500 Silverado, glare would continue to be a problem. Why the lax rule? Because NHTSA doesn't want to upset GM and its bottom line.

    Unfortunately, NHTSA failed to meet several self imposed deadlines for releasing a final rule. Part of the reason may be that members of LightsOut.ORG wanted proof that DRLs were effective in the US. In 2000, NHTSA released a preliminary assessment, claiming a 5% reduction in some non-fatal collisions and a 28% reduction in pedestrian fatalities. NHTSA's study was, as expected, full of holes. Read about the details on our Studies page. As of December, 2001, we're still waiting for NHTSA's final rule. In the meantime, GM and others are free to inflict high beam DRLs on the motoring public.

    On December 20, 2001, GM petitioned NHTSA to mandate DRLs for all new vehicles in the US. We can only guess what GM's motivation is. Perhaps, seeing their marketshare erode, they felt they could level the playing field with other manufacturers. If their competitors were forced to sell vehicles with DRLs, then those of us who refuse to purchase a car with DRLs would have no choice, and their competitors would have to include the cost of the mandatory DRLs in the vehicle's price. Another possibility is that GM has seen a preview of NHTSA's final rule and doesn't like it. By agreeing to respond to GM's petition within 120 days, NHTSA may have to yet again delay implementation of the rule for several more months. We can only hope that NHTSA will do The Right Thing and straighten out the mess that they created. Unless you want your next new car, truck, or SUV to have DRLs by federal mandate, act now and join our organization!

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Case Against DRLs
    Unlike our opponents, we have clear reasons for our position, some of which you've already read:

    1. The original concept for DRLs was to compensate for a lighting deficiency. We don't have such a deficiency in the United States!

    2. Since we have greater natural light, the auto manufacturers have increased the intensity of their DRLs. Just what we need: Bright lights hitting your eyes while you're trying to drive a car on a busy highway!

    3. Safety features need not create hazards and, more to the point, should not be so very, very annoying to so many people. Humans, by our very nature, tend to avoid disturbing stimuli, thus taking our eyes off the road! Some people respond to DRLs by avoiding looking directly at other cars on the road. Some avoid using their rear- or side-view mirrors. Some are even using devices which are a
  • nimrod99nimrod99 Posts: 343
    3. Safety features need not create hazards and, more to the point, should not be so very, very annoying to so many people. Humans, by our very nature, tend to avoid disturbing stimuli, thus taking our eyes off the road! Some people respond to DRLs by avoiding looking directly at other cars on the road. Some avoid using their rear- or side-view mirrors. Some are even using devices which are already on the market to reduce the glare from oncoming DRLs. These actions by people will result in them being less observant, therefore, worse drivers and more accident prone.

    4. Current data on the safety benefits of DRLs has been misinterpreted by proponents of DRLs. They have absolutely no positive effect on bright sunny days. The data should be interpreted thusly: People are not turning on their lights in conditions requiring illumination -- e.g. rain, snow, fog, dusk, dawn, etc. -- and therefore the problem is driver error. The solution, logically, should be driver improvement.

    5. Of all the myriad categories of motor vehicle crashes, DRL use is arguably associated with improving one, maybe two types. The better solution to highway safety is driver improvement; this would substantially and dramatically decrease accidents of all types.

    6. People will literally die because of DRL use. By failing to institute the correct solution to problems illustrated by DRL data -- driver error -- people will continue to die and be injured who might otherwise have been spared from such incidents. Furthermore, we believe the annoyance and distraction caused by DRL-equipped vehicles will be significant, but we also believe this will never be admitted or assigned to DRL use by their proponents.

    7. DRLs are an inefficient use of resources. Lights will have to be replaced more frequently, and it will have to be done by auto service personnel. Fuel consumption will increase and, although it's not much per car, it is an astronomical dollar figure when multiplied by the millions of vehicles in this country. Conservative estimates place the figure at 604 million gallons of fuel per year, resulting in 8 billion pounds of CO2 being exhausted into the atmosphere. What's even worse, in testing vehicles for fuel efficiency, GM has requested -- and received -- permission from the federal government to disconnect DRLs so as not to be penalized for poorer fuel efficiency. So consumers are not able to know how DRLs will affect their fuel efficiency when buying a car. See NHTSA's correspondence with the EPA regarding DRLs' CAFE exemption.

    8. DRLs represent stone-age technology in the 21st century. Since cars do not need illumination at all hours, why not install sensors to activate headlights when ambient light is insufficient? The technology exists, and is already in use on several vehicle models.

    9. DRLs are insulting to our intelligence. DRL proponents assume that drivers are not intelligent enough to know when to turn on their lights. By implication, then, DRL proponents are saying, in effect, that the states are licensing unqualified drivers! Driving is a skill. Observation is a skill. With proper experience and training, these skills are integrated in the person of a safe driver. Both of these skills can be nurtured or improved in every driver. But, neither skill will be enhanced in today's environment if it believes safety lies in the gadgets and misinterpreted data. Safety, in reality, is nothing more than the collective responsibility of each individual to be the best driver -- the most observant, the most cautious, the most defensive, the most skilled -- that he or she can be.

    10. What is the industry's motivation? Safety? We think not. Again, follow the money trail.

    Even some level heads within the automotive industry have been reluctant to embrace DRLs. "It's not that we are against them, but we haven't seen any real evidence of the safety benefits," said Chrysler spokesman Jason Vines. (Automotive News, 1995.) "We are not convinced yet that they're going to be beneficial," said Ford's manager of advance safety, Sherman Henson. And even GM's executives have their doubts: "The research on whether or not daytime running lights are effective is mixed," said the company's director of legal and safety issues.

    Many more U.S. industry and safety officials say the theory behind DRLs needs further testing. And some suggest that GM's motivation is sales, not safety. It makes sense, in a time when airbags, anti-lock brakes and built-in child-safety seats are all the rage in new-car advertising.

    There are millions of individuals who feel as we do about DRLs, but so far we exist without an organization to represent our views and channel our thoughts, our votes and our purchasing power where it needs to go. We urge every individual who shares our concern about DRLs to join our organization. If we act in concert, they will feel our might. Without us, so called "safety people" will engage in further feel-good policymaking that will only justify their jobs.
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    Are NOT so you can see, but so YOU can/will be seen.

    Did you know that the overall safety statistics for ABS indicate that you are safer without them...??
  • achadha1achadha1 Posts: 64
    i have a craftsman opener but my remotes for it no longer work...do i need it to work or can i just set the training button and press the homelink button for it too work the craftsman is 7 years old. so far i have tried the training button then pressing and releasing the home link button 3 times with no luck...
  • nimrod99nimrod99 Posts: 343
    yes, but that's because people don't know how to take advantage of ABS.
  • qs933qs933 Posts: 302
    nimrod99: I know you're trying to be helpful, but I think it'd be a lot better if you'd just post a link to whatever you want to reference, rather than copying the whole thing here.

    Alternatively, just copy a few sentences to emphasize your point. For example, looking at the Wikipedia link, there's this statement, "...the concept of the daytime running light has repeatedly been scientifically shown to have safety value."

    I don't mind the DRLs. My insurance company gives me a discount for having them too. However, I wouldn't make my purchasing decision based entirely on the availability of DRLs. If my new car has them, great. If not, oh well.

    Also, I prefer when amber turn signals are used, like on the 4Runner, instead of the headlights or high beams. The previous generation Highlander used the high beams. Even at reduced power, they were very bright -- too bright, actually.

    Interestingly, Toyota seems to use the turn signals on all their trucks (including truck-based SUVs), while all their cars (including car-based SUVs) use reduced power headlights or high beams for DRLs.
  • bdymentbdyment Posts: 551
    We have had DRL's for almost 20 years. I live in Southern Ontario well below the 49th parallel and south of many continental US states. When DRL's were first introduced I thought they were unnecessary. However, I have changed my mind over the years. You can identify a vehicle with DRL's, even is sunlight much easier than ones without DRL's. As Mr. West stated they are meant for YOUR vehicle to be seen. Bottom line--they work. I think legislation should be passed that older vehicles that don't have DRL's should have to turn their headlights on so they can be seen as easily.
  • bigdadi118bigdadi118 Posts: 1,207
    older vehicles that don't have DRL's should have to turn their headlights on so they can be seen as easily.

    I tried it when driving in Canada and experienced forgot to turn the headlight off that required jump start from CAA.
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    And just who's fault was that..??

    You are required to use your headlights upon entering tunnels in many places in the US, how does that differ from having headlights on for/as DRLs and forgetting to turn them off...??
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    The highbeam assembly/reflector is the preferred method of implementing DRLs because they are designed, by default, to be seen at a greater distance than low beams, fog, or parking/turn/street lights.

    And if you want to complain about oncoming light brightness bothering your eyes or being a danger let's get some laws passed that regulate this matter and be sure they are enforced.

    1. NO front/front facing auxiliary lights whatsoever to be energized along with the low beam headlights.

    2. Fog lights only allowed to be used during normal daylight hours and NEVER in combination with headlights.

    3. All off-road lighting capability must be disabled when traveling on our public streets and highways and can ONLY be enabled/disabled from OUTSIDE the vehicle. Anyone stopped for other reasons and found to have off-road lights enabled would be cited for the violation

    And finally...

    All aftermarket HID/Xenon upgrades that do NOT self level and have SHARP distance illumination cutoff designs should be OUTLAWED.

    I note that some folks are even installing HID kits to power fog lights...NOW JUST HOW STUPID IS THAT...???!!!
  • nimrod99nimrod99 Posts: 343
    I am fully aware that DRL's make you more visible (in places like Scandinavia, or Northern Canada), but there are studies (by the Europeans and other agencies) that show an increase in pedestian and motorcycle accidents (deaths) due to DRLs'. DRL's increase visibility of the vehicle that has them, but has the tendancy to make things around less visible.

    Also - the main point of the argument is that DRL's are effective in twilight conditions, so why not put a light sensitive switch on the DRL's. It will save gas.

    In the USA where ambient light is much brighter during the day, DRL intensity has to be increased.

    Anyway, I have turned mine off. I will do my part to cut my CO2 emissions and potentially save the lives of pedestrians and motorcyclists
  • mtnman1mtnman1 Westerville, OhioPosts: 383
    I don't understand why so much space is being wasted discussing Daytime Running Lights. I wish I had them on my Mountaineer. Anytime I'm traveling on highway or especially two lane country roads I turn on my lights. I don't care what these studies say. To me I can see an oncoming car much better and others can see me much better when lights are on. I definitely don't think it reduces MPG or maybe I've misunderstood this part. That's getting a little Enviro-Wacko out there IMO.
  • nimrod99nimrod99 Posts: 343
    DRL's consume upto 0.25 mpg.
    0.25 mpg x 100 million cars = loads of gas.

    Jeez, if you can't see a 5000 lb SUV in broad daylight, you need to have your eyes checked?.

    " Fuel consumption will increase and, although it's not much per car, it is an astronomical dollar figure when multiplied by the millions of vehicles in this country. Conservative estimates place the figure at 604 million gallons of fuel per year, resulting in 8 billion pounds of CO2 being exhausted into the atmosphere. What's even worse, in testing vehicles for fuel efficiency, GM has requested -- and received -- permission from the federal government to disconnect DRLs so as not to be penalized for poorer fuel efficiency"
  • bdymentbdyment Posts: 551
    There is no way DRL's consume 0.25 mpg. If that is the case what does AC
    consume-- 10mpg? There is simply no convincing you of the advantages of DRL's, therefore on to better things.
  • ronnronn Posts: 398
    I agree mtnman1. I think DRL's are very important. It is much easier to see a car with them turned on, especially cloudy days etc.
    I think all cars should have them. I also agree that the MPG thing is a little rediculous! We can go "green" while not being too overboard.
    While people can post anything here, I do believe alot of wasted time has been on this forum recently, between the Navigation issues and DRL issues. I would really like to get back to reading some great stories about folks who love their Highlanders and things that can be beneficial.
    I posted needing help with a Navigation issue the other day, and got my response and got the help I needed. That's when I really appreciate this forum.

    Everyone have a great day!
  • tidestertidester Posts: 10,109
    There is no way DRL's consume 0.25 mpg.

    I think it's an oversimplification to look for a gas mileage equivalent for either DRLs or AC. Yes, they both use gasoline as their energy source but there are other overriding variables in the mix. Both DRLs and AC use energy at a rate that is pretty much independent of driving speed whereas the rate of gasoline consumption by the vehicle depends very strongly on driving speed.

    The proper metric is actual energy usage. For example, AC uses energy at a rate of about 4 kW. A gallon of gasoline contains about 130 Megajoules of usable energy. This tells us that AC would take about 9 hours to use up the energy equivalent of 1 gallon of gasoline. But even that is not the whole picture. The conversion of the gasoline's thermal energy into electricity to power the AC is itself wasteful. If one third of the thermal energy actually makes it into electrical energy then the AC will expend the energy equivalent of a gallon of gasoline in about 3 hours. DRLs use energy at about one tenth the AC rate.

    How that gallon of gasoline translates into mpg is another matter entirely. There would be a huge difference in the mpg equivalent depending on whether you're moving along at 30 mph in town or barreling along at 80 mph on the freeway.
Sign In or Register to comment.